ArticleBMJ open2023
Costs, consequences and value for money in non-medical prescribing: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Practice development perspective of RTT contouring in online adaptive radiotherapy for prostate cancer: A single-centre cost-consequence analysis.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of prescribing by dietitians and therapeutic radiographers in England.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Article
- Prescription rights for psychologists - exploring professionals' perspective in Poland.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesNon-medical prescribing (NMP) is a key feature of the UK healthcare system that refers to the legal prescribing rights granted to nurses, pharmacists and other non-medical healthcare professionals who have completed an approved training programme. NMP is deemed to facilitate better patient care and timely access to medicine. The aim of this scoping review is to identify, synthesise and report the evidence on the costs, consequences and value for money of NMP provided by non-medical healthcare professionals.
designScoping review DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, PubMed, ISI Web of Science and Google Scholar were systematically searched from 1999 to 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Peer-reviewed and grey literature written in English were included. The research was limited to original studies evaluating economic values only or both consequences and costs of NMP. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The identified studies were screened independently by two reviewers for final inclusion. The results were reported in tabular form and descriptively.
resultsA total of 420 records were identified. Of these, nine studies evaluating and comparing NMP with patient group discussions, general practitioner-led usual care or services provided by non-prescribing colleagues were included. All studies evaluated the costs and economic values of prescribing services by non-medical prescribers, and eight assessed patient, health or clinical outcomes. Three studies showed pharmacist prescribing was superior in all outcomes and cost saving at a large scale. Others reported similar results in most health and patient outcomes across other non-medical prescribers and control groups. NMP was deemed resource intensive for both providers and other groups of non-medical prescribers (eg, nurses, physiotherapists, podiatrists).
conclusionsThe review demonstrated the need for quality evidence from more rigorous methodological studies examining all relevant costs and consequences to show value for money in NMP and inform the commissioning of NMP for different groups of healthcare professionals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.